Taunton representative's comments cause uproar

Thursday

Jun 26, 2008 at 12:01 AMJun 26, 2008 at 4:34 AM

State Rep. James Fagan has drawn widespread criticism from victims’ rights advocates after arguing against mandatory minimum sentences for child rapists, saying defense attorneys would “rip apart” young victims on the witness stand in order to defend their clients.

Gerry Tuoti

State Rep. James Fagan has drawn widespread criticism from victims’ rights advocates after arguing against mandatory minimum sentences for child rapists, saying defense attorneys would “rip apart” young victims on the witness stand in order to defend their clients.

Speaking against an amendment to Jessica’s Law, the Taunton Democrat, who is also a defense attorney, argued that imposing “draconian” mandatory sentences for child rapists would traumatize victims by forcing them to testify in front of their attackers. If the amendment passes and a child couldn’t testify, a rapist could go free due to a lack of sufficient testimony, he said.

“That 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me, and I’m going to rip them apart,” Fagan said during a recent House debate. “I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined; that when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

Fagan said Wednesday that he was using “I” in a broad sense to illustrate how some defense attorneys would go after child victims on the witness stand. He added that he personally is “extraordinarily careful to handle any child extremely delicately to have the least amount of damage possible.”

But many victims’ rights advocates were infuriated by Fagan’s comments, some of which have since been aired on cable news outlets.

The father of the murdered Florida girl for whom Jessica’s Law is named said Fagan’s remarks on the House floor troubled him.

“I don’t like what he said, and nobody else does, but it’s true,” Mark Lunsford said. “That’s what they (defense attorneys) do.”

Lunsford, whose daughter Jessica was raped and murdered by a repeat sex offender, traveled to Massachusetts to support the bill. Thirty five other states have passed some version of Jessica’s Law. Lunsford said Fagan should propose a solution to the problem instead of rail against mandatory minimum sentences.

“How long have you been in office, and why haven’t you closed those loopholes?” the father steamed. “Stop being a defense attorney when you’re up at the capitol and start being the legislator you told the people you would be.”

Fagan said he fielded hundreds of hate calls Wednesday.

“The thing I’m most troubled by is that speech was not intended to reflect my own personal thoughts or beliefs,” Fagan said.

The lawmaker said he never meant to insult anyone.

“It was intended to illustrate the unintended harm that could come to victims,” he said.

Locally, many have blasted Fagan’s remarks from the House debate.

“He is an embarrassment,” said Eugene McCaffrey of Taunton. “It’s absolutely disgusting to even consider doing that to a child… The man should resign.”

Even one of Fagan’s distant relatives, Paulette Hurley of Raynham, said she was “absolutely shocked.”

“I’ve known Jim all my life, and I’m just stunned he could come out with comments like that,” the former Taunton resident said. “The people of Taunton deserve better representation than that.”

Insisting that his comments were taken out of context, Fagan stands behind his opposition to mandatory minimum sentences for child rapists. He instead favors a version of the bill that lets the judge have more freedom in deciding a sentence.

Fagan, who said all the district attorneys in the state agreed with him, said a mandatory minimum sentence would make it nearly impossible to settle out of court, meaning child rape victims would be forced to testify in front of their attackers.

“The result is in many instances, it is my fear that that would cause tremendous harm to the children and re-traumatize them,” he said.

Such an amendment would “handcuff prosecutors and the courts,” meaning that some child rapists could walk free if the victim’s parents wouldn’t let him or her testify.

“I’d rather have a good law that’s enforceable than a stupid law that politically sounds good, but could harm children,” Fagan said.

gtuoti@tauntongazette.com

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.